4.5 Article

In vivo assessment of pulmonary fibrosis and edema in rodents using the backscatter coefficient and envelope statisticsa)

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA
卷 150, 期 1, 页码 183-192

出版社

ACOUSTICAL SOC AMER AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1121/10.0005481

关键词

-

资金

  1. United States Department of Defense, Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs [DoD W81XWH-18-1-0101]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Quantitative ultrasound methods were used to quantify lung properties in vivo, finding that multiple BSC and envelope statistical parameters provide contrast between healthy and diseased lungs, and are significantly correlated with the severity of pulmonary fibrosis.
Quantitative ultrasound methods based on the backscatter coefficient (BSC) and envelope statistics have been used to quantify disease in a wide variety of tissues, such as prostate, lymph nodes, breast, and thyroid. However, to date, these methods have not been investigated in the lung. In this study, lung properties were quantified by BSC and envelope statistical parameters in normal, fibrotic, and edematous rat lungs in vivo. The average and standard deviation of each parameter were calculated for each lung as well as the evolution of each parameter with acoustic propagation time within the lung. The transport mean free path and backscattered frequency shift, two parameters that have been successfully used to assess pulmonary fibrosis and edema in prior work, were evaluated in combination with the BSC and envelope statistical parameters. Multiple BSC and envelope statistical parameters were found to provide contrast between control and diseased lungs. BSC and envelope statistical parameters were also significantly correlated with fibrosis severity using the modified Ashcroft fibrosis score as the histological gold standard. These results demonstrate the potential for BSC and envelope statistical parameters to improve the diagnosis of pulmonary fibrosis and edema as well as monitor pulmonary fibrosis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据